Author Topic: USBC Equip & Spec : Center of Gravity placement on a symmetrical bowling ball: How critical is it? (Read 9169 times)

bgh · « **on:** July 31, 2007, 08:44:37 AM »

Article : USBC Equipment Specifications and Certification - Center of Gravity placement on a symmetrical bowling ball: How critical is it? - By Paul Ridenour, USBC research engineer

BrunsNick is Famous! (Qualifier : Whichever Viewpoint you take...{fixed})
--------------------
SeriousKeglers.com

Recognizing, Sharing; Learning - One Frame at a Time; Saving "Bowling as a Sport"

Edited on 8/6/2007 6:43 PM

DP3 · « **Reply #16 on:** July 31, 2007, 07:58:41 PM »

It's so easy to see that C.G. has such a minor insignificance inside of legal specs. Anytime someone wants to go prove/disprove it they take the experiments way out of boundaries. Lets talk legal limits and see how much variation there is between something like 0 and 1/2 positive that everyone swears they can tell the difference between?
--------------------
-DJ Marshall
...The Twelve In a Row Pro Shop

Steven · « **Reply #17 on:** July 31, 2007, 08:49:09 PM »

quote:
It's so easy to see that C.G. has such a minor insignificance inside of legal specs. Anytime someone wants to go prove/disprove it they take the experiments way out of boundaries.

It wasn't CGNOMADDAH inside of legal limits. It was CGNOMADDAH period.

The USBC research shows what many of us already knew, that it does matter to some degree.

The argument with the previous Brunswick video is that the 'test' was sloppy at best; their whole intent was to show a conclusion they had already come to. In doing so, they were less than rigorous. The visual clearly showed different reactions in the last few shots, but they glossed over that by showing a "plot graph" concluding everything was the same. The Brunswick faithful proceeded to trip over their tongues yelling "ignore what you saw, look at the graph !!".

The USBC graph actually seems in sync with what really happened in the Brunswick video. So now, all those who cling to CGNOMADDAH scream "yea, but what about legal limits?

".

The denial is amazing, yet at the same time predictable.
--------------------
"Sometimes, the best move is the one we don't make"

WillynHook · « **Reply #18 on:** July 31, 2007, 09:19:44 PM »

Guess I can post this now...

quote:
From: purduepaul
Received: 7/19/2007 5:48:27 PM
Subject: CG - yeah, you know the topic... & thanks
Message: Dr. Joe-

Thanks for the support, honestly everyone here at the USBC does care about what typical bowlers care about. In the past there was a perception that no one in the general bowling public cared about the technical stuff. That opinion has since been proven wrong with my departments online articles. The CG debate is interesting and the article I wrote is the beginning. Besides my big coaching project the CG project will be my first project of 2008. The CATS data is interesting and the answer is 3 ounces of side weight difference from 1.25 ounces negative to 1.75 positive is about two boards and a foot difference in breakpoint (the negative ball has the longer bp). It would be hard to see with the naked eye. Static weights will be taken into consideration in phase II of the ball motion study. Keep reading and provide feedback since the USBC is the bowler's orginization.

Paul

Paul...

Yes, looking forward to actual numbers and CATS data. It is nice to see
someone at USBC interested in some of the debates that are happening in the
bowling trenches. Sometimes it does get pretty interesting what topics
the common house hacks (like myself) try to get involved in.

Good to see someone turning their degrees in science into a work/dreamjob
situation.

Cheers.

Dr. Joe

nospareball · « **Reply #19 on:** July 31, 2007, 11:00:43 PM »

quote:
First of all, in the opening credits, it states that Nick's video is on Brunswick's website, that is incorrect, it is BrunsNick's website.

Secondly, they tested 2 Columbia balls. They did not test 2 Brunswick bowling balls or Ebonite or any other compnay for that matter. Therefore, how can you state anything more than the CG apparently matters in Columbia bowling balls, nothing else. All companies manufacture bowling balls differently, including infrastructure.

It is a valid test in reference to Columbia balls and really nothing else.
--------------------
Ric Hamlin
Pacific Northwest Product Specialist
Brunswick Bowling

AKA "Rico" and L.I.M.O.M.

By that logic you could state that Cg only matters in Columbia Wraith SF's and nothing else!

It's physics. Sure there will be some core+cover+bowler combinations where CG plays less of a role, but this test was to show whether or not CG placement and side weight had any effect on the reaction of a bowling ball.

I've always thought that CG mattered. Side weight is offset weight in a round object. Offset weight will affect the roll of a ball to some degree. Those that say 1oz makes no difference in a 16lb bowling ball should look at some of the other stats listed for balls that are seemingly small. Can people tell the difference between an RG of 2.49 and 2.54? Most here would say yes I would think, but really that's only a difference of .05 of an inch (1/20" for you drillers). Small numbers become big forces once an object is spun at 300rpm.
--------------------
-Clint

LuckyLefty · « **Reply #20 on:** July 31, 2007, 11:16:10 PM »

If it is not picked up by many on this site...Paul Ridenour is Purdue Paul.

But not this
guy....

Rotopop
--------------------
Paul

That you may retain your self-respect, it is better to displease the people by doing what you know is right, than to temporarily please them by doing what you know is wrong.
--William J. H. Boetcker

But maybe....

REgards,

Luckylefty
CGNOMADDEH except on Rotogrip balls thrown by Luckylefty or Lane 1 balls thrown by Richie Sposato. But yes Matters on Brunswick balls thrown by Walter Ray Williams but not now...that they've changed their manufacturing process for their cores. but sometimes matters when thrown by Parker Bohn...but did matter when thrown by Mike Scroggins till he signed with Track...and then...

--------------------
Open the door...see what's possible...and just walk right on through...that's how easy success feels..

GTX · « **Reply #21 on:** August 01, 2007, 10:21:40 AM »

amazing how this thread is ignored by most of those who were shouting "CGNOMADDAH" .. lol

more amazing when Lane1 bowlers were denying the concept of the CGNOMADDAH and were called idiots .. etc ... and now we see those who believe in CGNOMADDAH are in complete denial ...

if this test said CG doesn't matter, this thread would have been at least 4-5 pages by now

like I said before .. visual test fails when numbers are talking

--------------------

Member of F.O.S.

Fluff E Bunnie · « **Reply #22 on:** August 01, 2007, 10:26:54 AM »

I have never owned a gun but I am going to go find one and eat it now.
--------------------
Malkovich? Malkovich Malcovich Malkovich.

Fluff E Bunnie · « **Reply #23 on:** August 01, 2007, 10:31:48 AM »

I'm taking preorders on CGTENPERCENTMADDAH T-Shirts. Not really.
--------------------
Malkovich? Malkovich Malcovich Malkovich.

SKIDSNAP · « **Reply #24 on:** August 01, 2007, 10:39:14 AM »

First of all, in the opening credits, it states that Nick's video is on Brunswick's website, that is incorrect, it is BrunsNick's website.

Secondly, they tested 2 Columbia balls. They did not test 2 Brunswick bowling balls or Ebonite or any other compnay for that matter. Therefore, how can you state anything more than the CG apparently matters in Columbia bowling balls, nothing else. All companies manufacture bowling balls differently, including infrastructure.

It is a valid test in reference to Columbia balls and really nothing else.
--------------------
Ric Hamlin
Pacific Northwest Product Specialist
Brunswick Bowling

Your credebility in my mind has been reduced to nil. "CG only matters in Columbia balls" LOL I cannot believe you actually typed that. I now must assume that your knowledge of bowling balls and physics is at a Pre-K level.

I think the Fisher-Price website has a forum you can participate in.

Fluff E Bunnie · « **Reply #25 on:** August 01, 2007, 10:41:20 AM »

So CGMADDAHSALITTLEBUTONLYINCOLUMBIA. I am just trying to keep up with the BR lingo.
--------------------
Malkovich? Malkovich Malcovich Malkovich.

Steven · « **Reply #26 on:** August 01, 2007, 10:45:55 AM »

Paul,

Nice work on the study. I have a question for clarification regarding the following:

quote:
One eight-shot test was used as a break-in period for the two balls in the study.

Does this mean that eight shots were taken on the target lanes before the measurable test started?

Thanks.
--------------------
"Sometimes, the best move is the one we don't make"

« **Reply #27 on:** August 01, 2007, 10:57:10 AM »

quote:
Just to clarify something, its not four feet in breakpoint, its 4 feet before the first transition. The breakpoint difference is a little over one foot.

______________________________________________________________________________

The effect of CG in this study with a robot (not a bowler) was H-U-G-E!!! A whopping 1 foot (approx.) difference at breakpoint!

Imagine what would happen if a real bowler (who is much more accurate than the robot) threw the ball, WOW!!! Most bowlers, including the ones on this site, and I include myself, would never see the difference...

If you think you can see the difference, you probably will. But don't forget to put a tooth under your pillow tonight for the Tooth Fairy...

--------------------
notclay

Lane Carter, Strike Zone Pro Shops - Salt Lake City, Utah

"He who dies with the most bowling balls is still dead."

chitown · « **Reply #28 on:** August 01, 2007, 10:59:28 AM »

quote:
The effect of CG in this study with a robot (not a bowler) was H-U-G-E!!! A whopping 1 foot (approx.) difference at breakpoint!

Imagine what would happen if a real bowler (who is much more accurate than the robot) threw the ball, WOW!!! Most bowlers, including the ones on this site, and I include myself, would never see the difference...

If you think you can see the difference, you probably will. But don't forget to put a tooth under your pillow tonight for the Tooth Fairy...

--------------------

The ball get's into it's roll 4ft sooner which makes a big difference. This makes a difference when it comes down to the ball reading the pattern.

Face the facts, the CG does matter! You guys were wrong!
--------------------
This fall it's Raw Hammer Time!

« **Reply #29 on:** August 01, 2007, 11:01:54 AM »

Don't forget to put out your Easter basket, too.

--------------------
notclay

Lane Carter, Strike Zone Pro Shops - Salt Lake City, Utah

"He who dies with the most bowling balls is still dead."

chitown · « **Reply #30 on:** August 01, 2007, 11:03:45 AM »

quote:
Don't forget to put out your Easter basket, too.

--------------------
notclay

Lane Carter, Strike Zone Pro Shops - Salt Lake City, Utah

"He who dies with the most bowling balls is still dead."

Typical response from the CG don't matter crowd!
--------------------
This fall it's Raw Hammer Time!

Author Topic: USBC Equip & Spec : Center of Gravity placement on a symmetrical bowling ball: How critical is it? (Read 9169 times)

bgh

USBC Equip & Spec : Center of Gravity placement on a symmetrical bowling ball: How critical is it?

DP3

Re: USBC Equip & Spec : Center of Gravity placement on a symmetrical bowling ball: How critical is it?

Steven

Re: USBC Equip & Spec : Center of Gravity placement on a symmetrical bowling ball: How critical is it?

WillynHook

Re: USBC Equip & Spec : Center of Gravity placement on a symmetrical bowling ball: How critical is it?

nospareball

Re: USBC Equip & Spec : Center of Gravity placement on a symmetrical bowling ball: How critical is it?

LuckyLefty

Re: USBC Equip & Spec : Center of Gravity placement on a symmetrical bowling ball: How critical is it?

GTX

Re: USBC Equip & Spec : Center of Gravity placement on a symmetrical bowling ball: How critical is it?

Fluff E Bunnie

Re: USBC Equip & Spec : Center of Gravity placement on a symmetrical bowling ball: How critical is it?

Fluff E Bunnie

Re: USBC Equip & Spec : Center of Gravity placement on a symmetrical bowling ball: How critical is it?

SKIDSNAP

Re: USBC Equip & Spec : Center of Gravity placement on a symmetrical bowling ball: How critical is it?

Fluff E Bunnie

Re: USBC Equip & Spec : Center of Gravity placement on a symmetrical bowling ball: How critical is it?

Steven

Re: USBC Equip & Spec : Center of Gravity placement on a symmetrical bowling ball: How critical is it?

Re: USBC Equip & Spec : Center of Gravity placement on a symmetrical bowling ball: How critical is it?

chitown

Re: USBC Equip & Spec : Center of Gravity placement on a symmetrical bowling ball: How critical is it?

Re: USBC Equip & Spec : Center of Gravity placement on a symmetrical bowling ball: How critical is it?

chitown

Re: USBC Equip & Spec : Center of Gravity placement on a symmetrical bowling ball: How critical is it?